“The future is not merely a place we go. It is the unfolding of the possibilities that exist in and around us—a field of potential and orientation, in which we act not only as participants but as co-creators of a cosmic process.”
1. Prelude: Rethinking the Very Notion of “Future”
Contemporary discourse often reduces the future to a bland extension of the present—an extrapolation of current trends, a set of data projections, or perhaps an optimistic technology-driven forecast. Politicians speak of a “better tomorrow”; strategists produce timelines with milestone achievements; business roadmaps outline new product releases. Yet behind these images lurks a deeper, more elusive complexity: the future is far from an empty container into which we pour our hopes and fears. It is not merely a linear trajectory emanating from present conditions.
In philosophy, we find a wide array of definitions for the future—ranging from the Enlightenment’s linear-progress viewpoint (exemplified by Francis Bacon or Auguste Comte), to the postmodern fragmentation that rejects universal narratives (as advanced by Jean-François Lyotard or Jacques Derrida). Systemic theory and cybernetics add another layer, highlighting feedback loops, emergent properties, and the significance of second-order observation. Meanwhile, the current era—thoroughly interwoven with artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced computational infrastructure—challenges us to move beyond 20th-century models of mere optimization, forcing us to ask: What if the future is best understood not as a linear result but as an emergent phenomenon within an evolving, self-regulating system?
In this essay, I argue for a redefinition of the future, grounded in second-order cybernetics. I propose that we see the future less as a predicted end-state or mechanical projection, and more as the “emergence of consolidated potentiality,” realized through dynamic adaptation and co-creative synergy. This approach aims to unify insights from system theory, biology, AI-driven infrastructures, and philosophical inquiries into autonomy, creativity, and meaning. In a world where civilizations become thoroughly immersed in AI or “cybernetic scaffolding,” the future reemerges as something akin to a self-regulating, autopoietic horizon—a living environment in which latent potentials can flourish if we cultivate the right conditions.
Beyond theory, these arguments carry practical weight for the concept of future-management. Traditional strategic planning rests heavily on controlling inputs and outputs, as if the future were malleable clay shaped by human intention alone. But the more we saturate our world with AI feedback loops, the more obvious it becomes that “control” is a partial fiction. The future is increasingly co-created by complex adaptive networks, requiring a shift from top-down management to a facilitative approach: enabling the conditions under which emergent forms can blossom.
Throughout the following sections, I will:
Compare historical definitions of the future—from the linear-progression mindset to postmodern fragmentation.
Introduce a second-order cybernetic perspective, emphasizing self-regulation, autopoiesis, and emergent synergy.
Offer a new conceptual frame in which the future is best understood as an emergent field of consolidated potentials, drawing analogies between rigid, “metal-reinforced” infrastructures and living systems that grow organically.
Discuss the role of AI as an enabling infrastructure that can either rigidify systems or, if approached correctly, open spaces for deeper human autonomy and creative evolution.
Sketch a blueprint for future-management that prioritizes continuous reorientation, synergy, and meaning-making over ephemeral illusions of control.
Highlight how such a future, understood as emergent potential, might be portrayed in immersive, multi-sensory contexts—exhibitions, interactive narratives, or what I call “creator fiction,” where participants are co-creators.
The ultimate goal is to situate the future at the intersection of self-regulating AI infrastructures and human creativity, forging a synergy that transcends the old models of linear planning or superficial rational forecasting.
2. Evolution of Future Concepts: From Enlightenment Certainties to Postmodern Fragmentation
2.1. The Modern Era’s Linear Future
The modern worldview, heavily influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, posits the future as a domain to be conquered by reason, science, and human ingenuity. Thinkers like Francis Bacon championed the harnessing of nature for human ends, while Auguste Comte and the later positivist tradition viewed history as a linear progression toward increasing rational order. Under this scheme, the future is basically a project: one invests in technology, policy, or scientific discovery, systematically making tomorrow “better” than today.
Although such a worldview led to extraordinary progress—industrialization, mass production, revolutions in communication—it also harbored flaws. By presuming that tomorrow would always represent an upgrade to the present, it overlooked the ecological and social complexities that quickly escalated into crises. The linear future neglected non-linear behaviors of real systems; it implicitly assumed that control from the outside was both feasible and normative. In reality, industrial might ramped up resource extraction with little regard for feedback loops. Over time, these assumptions began to fracture under the weight of environmental disasters, world wars, and the ethical dilemmas of technology gone awry.
2.2. The Postmodern Shattering of Universal Narratives
In response to the perceived hubris of modern linear progress, postmodern philosophy introduced a radical critique. No single “grand narrative” (Lyotard’s term) can encapsulate the multiplicity of truths. Instead, we see myriad “little narratives,” localized truths shaped by context, power structures, and cultural codes. Under postmodernism, the future splinters into countless micro-futures, each valid from its perspective, none claiming universality.
While this shattering of illusions about a universal, controllable future offered an important corrective, it also generated a vacuum in orientation. When all narratives are seen as equally contingent, decision-making falters. The future becomes a zone of radical relativism—individuals or communities can sense infinite possibilities but no overarching coherence. This fosters a paradox: greater freedom in imagining potential worlds but less impetus to collectively unify around any single path. Meanwhile, crises requiring large-scale coordination (e.g., climate change) highlight the dangers of a purely relativist approach to the future.
2.3. The Need for a New Synthesis
We thus stand at an impasse between modern linear confidence and postmodern fragmentation. Cybernetics, especially in its second-order formulations, may hold the key to a new future concept that integrates partial coherence without imposing a single teleological end-state. Instead of fixating on stable predictions, second-order cybernetics places us in a realm of emergent self-regulation, observer-inclusive frameworks, and open-ended adaptation. This vantage resonates with the contemporary shift from hierarchical bureaucracies to networked ecosystems, from mechanical illusions of control to dynamic processes of co-creation.
3. The Cybernetic Turn: Toward an Autopoietic Vision of the Future
3.1. First-Order Cybernetics: Control and Equilibrium
Classical or first-order cybernetics, pioneered by Norbert Wiener, focused on feedback loops that keep systems near equilibrium. The canonical example is the thermostat: it measures current temperature and adjusts heating or cooling to maintain a setpoint. Translating that model to social or ecological systems, planners often tried to “engineer the future” by controlling variables through regulation and intervention. The assumption was that the system under observation would remain mostly external, subject to expert manipulation.
Yet, while these techniques work well for tightly bounded mechanical processes, they struggle with complexity. Social, economic, or ecological realities seldom yield to top-down directives without unexpected side-effects. Moreover, the assumption of objective external control breaks down once we acknowledge that the observer is part of the system. This leads to second-order cybernetics.
3.2. Second-Order Cybernetics: Self-Observation, Emergence, and Recursion
Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana, and Francisco Varela revolutionized cybernetics by introducing the observer into the system. Here, the key insight is that living or social systems maintain themselves through autopoiesis—they produce and reproduce their own components while interacting with the environment. The system is not a mere object of control; it is a participant in perceiving, reconfiguring, and evolving.
In second-order cybernetics, the future appears as the emergent outcome of ongoing self-regulation and structural coupling. Instead of external control, adaptation arises from internal reorganization driven by feedback that includes the system’s own interpretive processes. A living organism exemplifies this notion: it does not rigidly follow a single blueprint but adjusts to environmental shifts, preserving identity and function in the process of growth.
3.2.1. Relevance to Future-Management
From a second-order vantage, “managing the future” cannot revolve around linear forecasting and mechanical interventions. Instead, it becomes a matter of orchestrating conditions that promote beneficial emergent phenomena. The subject—be it an individual, a community, or an AI-augmented network—moves from controlling variables to enablingadaptive cycles that produce synergy and resilience. This approach redefines future-management as a commitment to fostering self-regulatory patterns rather than imposing top-down designs.
4. A New Definition: Future as the Emergence of Consolidated Potentiality
4.1. Beyond Linear Projection: The Concept of Potentiality
To break free of simplistic notions, we need to clarify potentiality. In everyday speech, potential often means “what might happen”—but it can devolve into speculation. By contrast, I propose that potentiality is more akin to a latent field of energies, ready to be shaped by the system’s adaptive processes. In biology, for instance, seeds harbor a potential that unfolds given the right moisture, temperature, and nutrient conditions. Similarly, in a technologically advanced society, potential might refer to novel forms of social organization, ethical frameworks, or AI-human collaborations waiting to be realized through creative synergy.
Crucially, potentiality does not guarantee actualization. It remains latent unless the system’s structure and environment align. This is where self-regulation and emergent co-creation come into play. Potentials exist in a space of possibility—like seeds in the soil—but they only germinate if the system fosters them.
4.2. Consolidated Emergence: From Latency to Structural Realization
Emergence describes how novel structures or behaviors arise from interactions among simpler components. In the context of the future, emergence suggests that the “world-to-come” is not a linear extension but rather a creative outcome of interplays among existing forces, constraints, and latencies. When we speak of a “consolidated emergence,” we mean the process by which multiple potentials interlock into a coherent pattern, forming new stable or semi-stable states that remain open to further evolution.
We might compare this to an ecosystem that undergoes succession after a disturbance: seeds from various species lie dormant until conditions allow them to sprout, eventually forming an integrated community. Or consider a second-order AI system, where modules self-adjust through continuous feedback, culminating in an emergent intelligence that no single module alone could produce. The future, in this sense, is not an externally defined goal but the unfolding synergy of potentialities that finds cohesive expression.
4.2.1. Why “Consolidated”?
A key term is “consolidation.” Not all emergent phenomena stabilize. Some remain fleeting or chaotic. For the future to become more than ephemeral novelty, emergent patterns require integration into the system’s operational core. This integration allows the new structure to replicate or refine itself. Once consolidated, emergent phenomena can actively shape subsequent evolution, forming a new baseline from which further emergent steps build.
4.3. Spectacular Implications for “Future-Management”
When the future is seen as “the emergence of consolidated potentiality,” conventional project planning loses its central place. Gantt charts, risk assessments, and linear roadmaps might still hold local value, but the deeper impetus is about nurturing processes that allow these potentialities to coalesce. Instead of fixating on deadlines, a manager or policymaker might invest in generative conditions: open feedback channels, flexible regulatory frameworks, cross-disciplinary knowledge flows, and minimal friction to novel adaptation. One fosters “gardening” rather than “engineering,” offering the seeds (potentials) the environment they need to sprout and join in synergy.
5. Metaphor: Reinforced Concrete vs. Biological Self-Regulation
5.1. Two Infrastructural Archetypes
To illustrate the difference between a mechanical, control-oriented approach and an emergent, living approach, consider these two analogies:
Reinforced Concrete (or “metallic grids in cement”)
This structure is robust, stable, and well-suited for fixed architectural forms. However, it is inflexible to changing loads or expansions. Once poured, it is nearly set for life. Adjustments or partial refittings require drastic measures.
In socio-technical systems, this is analogous to centralized bureaucracies, rigidly linear processes, or top-down AI modules. They excel at producing predictable outcomes under stable conditions but can become brittle under unexpected shifts.
Biological Organisms (or “consolidated infrastructures of self-regulation”)
Living systems adapt from within. Their structural integrity arises not from external reinforcement but from ongoing repair, regeneration, and reorganization. Seeds sprout, organisms grow, and ecosystems self-balance across myriad feedback loops.
By analogy, an advanced civilization that employs second-order AI or self-regulatory frameworks invests in flexible, evolving infrastructures. Instead of imposing single blueprint solutions, it fosters conditions for local adaptation and global coherence in synergy.
5.2. Relevance to Future as Emergent Potential
If we treat the future as a domain best served by “reinforced concrete,” we aim for top-down designs, ignoring the possibility that conditions will evolve. This leads to illusions of control that become liabilities under unforeseen circumstances. Meanwhile, if we treat the future as akin to a “biological organism,” we prioritize living synergy—decentralized, adaptive processes that handle novelty fluidly. The result is a self-regulating tapestry where potentialities unify into emergent forms.
Hence, adopting the latter vantage might transform how we build institutions, how we approach AI governance, or how we manage policy. Rather than dictating final outcomes, we shape the environment so that emergent solutions can flourish. The future, then, is not hammered into place but grown, paralleling how seeds, when given fertile ground, produce a forest more resilient than any artificially forced plantation.
6. The World of AI: Upgrading the Future or Freezing It?
6.1. AI as Rigidifying Infrastructure
A frequent concern is that AI systems, particularly those driven by machine learning or advanced analytics, might entrench existing biases or freeze social structures. Deployed at scale by large corporations or governments, AI might become akin to a reinforced concrete model: it codifies present data and extends it into the future, leaving little space for radical novelty. Overfitted training sets lead to brittle predictions. Predefined categories hamper the unexpected.
In short, if we treat AI purely as a “control system,” it can exacerbate the illusions of top-down mastery. We integrate AI into every layer of daily life—automated social credit, predictive policing, or “smart” city protocols—believing we have commanded the future. The risk is that we build a digital labyrinth that stifles emergent potentials, ignoring feedback from edges that deviate from the system’s preconceived patterns.
6.2. AI as Biological-Like, Self-Regulating Matrix
However, second-order cybernetics suggests a different route: AI can serve as an enabling “biosphere” for social and ethical co-intelligence. Rather than finalizing structures, it can facilitate dynamic conversations, track emergent signals, and adapt policies in real-time. This approach sees AI as an infrastructure of partial frameworks that remain open to reinterpretation. If we embed robust feedback loops—transparency, citizen involvement, ethical oversight—AI might help unify scattered potentials into emergent synergy without locking everything down.
Such an AI scaffolding would be less about memorizing historical data and more about fostering “structural coupling” with the environment. Admittedly, this requires bold rethinking of AI’s economic and political governance. Yet if realized, it might give us an advanced, living network that encourages free interplay of new ideas, bridging autonomy with synergy. The future, in that scenario, becomes an “evolutionary orchard” where new forms of collective intelligence and meaning can sprout.
7. Toward a Future-Management Framework
7.1. Orientations vs. Goals
Traditional planning tools define explicit goals, timelines, budgets, etc. In an emergent approach, we pivot to “orientation.” Instead of prescribing every step, we anchor a system around guiding principles—ethical commitments, open communication channels, accountability for feedback. The system organizes itself around these orbits while leaving the exact path or outcome fluid. We care about consistent moral or conceptual compasses rather than rigid endpoints.
A health system, for instance, might adopt the principle that “All community members have transparent input channels, and care must adapt to local feedback.” Instead of a single blueprint for every clinic, the orientation fosters ongoing, local solutions that remain coordinated at a higher level. The future emerges from the synergy among participants, not from a top-down mandate.
7.2. Ecosystem Enabling
A second crucial dimension is the notion of ecosystem enabling. Future-management, from this angle, invests in conditions that let potentials integrate. This can involve:
Minimal friction for cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Diverse funding that seeds experimental projects without overly bureaucratic gates.
Transparent data to highlight anomalies or emergent patterns quickly.
AI support that identifies and reinterprets signals, while letting humans test new angles.
We become “gardeners,” ensuring the environment is fertile for future growth, rather than micromanaging each sprout. The payoff is that, while certain random possibilities fail, others coalesce into breakthroughs that no single controlling authority could have planned in detail.
7.3. Cyclic Reorientation and Meta-Stability
In an emergent model, new forms appear, consolidate, then open further horizons. We see a cyclical dynamic:
Latent seeds of possibility are recognized.
Local expansions occur in synergy.
Consolidation integrates these expansions into the system’s operational core.
Fresh latencies arise, spurred by novel interactions.
Reorientation readjusts the environment to incorporate or nurture newly recognized seeds.
Each cycle fosters meta-stability: the system remains stable enough to accumulate progress but flexible enough to incorporate new waves of potential. Over time, this cyclical layering yields a forward motion that is not strictly linear yet accumulative in a deep sense. The future is thus “managed” by systematically supporting these cyclical expansions rather than by locking down final states.
8. Potentials, Meaning, and Human Autonomy
8.1. Why “Meaning” Matters in Future-Management
One might wonder: Why talk of meaning, a concept often relegated to philosophy or spirituality, in a discussion on future-management? Because in large-scale emergent systems, meaning acts as a binding agent that galvanizes cooperation and moral orientation. Without it, synergy collapses into short-run self-interest or ephemeral hype. Or as some might say, a mere algorithmic efficiency lacks the emotional and ethical resonance needed to align human energies for the long haul.
When we treat the future as consolidated potentiality, meaning is not a side effect but a central dimension. People do not fully embrace a new synergy unless they sense a deeper significance. This stands in contrast to control-based frameworks, which assume compliance if rules are enforced. Emergent frameworks rely on voluntary buy-in; meaning is what draws participants to invest wholeheartedly in the emergent pattern. They see themselves not as cogs but as co-creators of a next horizon.
8.2. Autonomy as the Engine of Co-Creation
Autonomy, in this sense, is more than individual freedom. It is the capacity to reinterpret local phenomena in ways that feed back into the system’s potential. The future thrives or withers based on whether these interpretive freedoms exist. If every participant is forced to conform to a single blueprint, new seeds remain dormant, and emergent synergy never takes hold. If participants can adapt local vantage points yet remain connected by a shared orientation (ethical or conceptual), the system fosters creative leaps.
Hence the synergy between autonomy and meaning: each subject can see their personal impetus recognized within the evolving structure, fueling a sense of purpose that integrates personal and collective evolution. This dimension is crucial in AI-mediated societies. While the machinery might automate countless tasks, the impetus for real transformation still depends on free interpretive agents who link ephemeral signals to enduring values or leaps of imagination.
9. Multi-Sensory Exploration of the Future: Immersive Narratives and “Creator Fiction”
9.1. Toward a Tactile, Experiential Future
If the future is not a static domain but an emergent synergy, then understanding it requires more than abstract reading. It may call for multi-sensory experiences—from walk-in exhibits, interactive VR frameworks, to cinematic narratives that immerse participants in layered possibilities. The user or audience does not passively learn a fixed scenario but actively tests potentialities, seeing how new conditions might unfold in real time. This stands in contrast to the typical “futures scenario planning,” which outlines alternative worlds in a top-down manner.
In a second-order approach, such experiences could be designed to highlight how feedback loops shape outcomes, how local reinterpretation triggers new synergy, or how seeds of novelty find fertile ground in improbable corners of the system. The audience co-creates the scenario, experiencing the shift from ephemeral illusions to emergent stable patterns.
9.2. “Creator Fiction” as a Participatory Tool
To deepen that involvement, we might adopt Creator Fiction, a narrative tool where participants are not mere spectators but co-authors. Traditional fiction places the audience in a receptive role; in creator fiction, each individual can propose or modify narrative elements, forging new arcs that might unpredictably converge.
Why is this relevant to future-management? Because it trains people in co-creative synergy—mirroring how emergent processes in real-world systems form. Instead of a single script, we see partial frameworks that adapt. The experience fosters direct insight into how tomorrow’s patterns can be “grown” from multiple vantage points.
Haptic and Cinematic Interventions: If these experiences incorporate tactile or cinematic elements (e.g., physical installations with AI-driven feedback, film sequences that shift based on user input, or group tasks requiring spontaneously aligned solutions), participants gain an embodied sense of emergent synergy. They realize the future is not a single, deterministic line but an evolving mosaic shaped by partial but mutually resonant acts of creation.
In sum, the vantage shift from “predicting the future” to “co-creating emergent synergy” becomes an experiential reality rather than an abstract concept.
10. A Radical Framework for Future-Management in the Age of AI
10.1. Key Pillars
Bringing all threads together, we can propose a radical future-management framework anchored in second-order cybernetics and emergent synergy:
Ethical-Conceptual Orientations: Instead of rigid goals, establish open moral lines (e.g., universal commitments to autonomy, creative expression, and ecological balance) that function as gravitational centers for the system.
Dynamic Infrastructures: Use AI not as a mechanical enforcer but as an environment that stabilizes mundane tasks while leaving interpretive margin for novel solutions. Mechanisms of feedback, transparency, and citizen involvement become crucial.
Partial Blueprints: Plans should outline broad direction, possible cycles, and enabling conditions, but not reduce the future to a single path. They function as “gardening guidelines” rather than “construction drawings.”
Recursive Reevaluation: Expect cyclical expansions: emergent phenomena lead to partial consolidation, which triggers new seeds of change. Over time, meta-stability arises, weaving present achievements into a scaffolding for further leaps.
Co-Intelligent Participation: Harness the synergy of distributed autonomy. People remain free to interpret local data in creative ways, yet unify around certain conceptual or ethical orbits. Tension between local variation and global coherence becomes the system’s engine of emergent potential.
10.2. Practical Implications
For policy-making, this means shifting from static laws to “adaptive legislation” that can incorporate new data or moral insights in near-real time. For corporate strategy, it suggests focusing on building ecosystems or platforms that invite user or partner co-creation rather than controlling entire value chains. For AI governance, it calls for continuous oversight from multiple vantage points, ensuring the system remains open to disruptive signals or minority perspectives.
On a cultural plane, it implies that the narrative of unstoppable mass illusions or unassailable bureaucracies must yield to a scenario where free interpretive agents shape tomorrow’s synergy. The future is no longer “the finish line of progress” nor “the chaotic aftermath of postmodern fracturing,” but a living horizon of potentials waiting to converge.
10.3. The Deeper Challenge: Autonomy, Meaning, and Time
Ultimately, this future-management approach does more than optimize processes; it reorients how we conceive time. In linear frameworks, the timeline is segmented into discrete milestones. In second-order synergy, time is partially “vertical,” as in creative inspiration, where emergent leaps can occur unpredictably. The subject invests in potentialities that might remain dormant until conditions shift, at which point they realize themselves in a sudden synergy. We thus reawaken the sense that time is not purely chronological but a multi-layered tapestry in which seeds might lie dormant for decades or centuries, waiting for the system’s reconfiguration to awaken them.
11. Conclusion: Toward a Spectacularly Multi-Dimensional Future
11.1. The “Seed” That Grows
If we accept that the future is best framed as “the emergence of consolidated potentiality,” then our role transforms from linear forecasting to cultivating synergy. We become akin to gardeners or orchard keepers, ensuring the ground is fertile, letting seeds of possibility nestle in partial frameworks, and trusting the system’s adaptability to unify them into meaningful next steps. The metaphor of a “metallic grid in concrete” might still have some uses for stable, unchanging tasks, but it fails to accommodate the fluid growth and co-intelligence that define truly living systems. By contrast, a biologically informed approach fosters ongoing self-regulation, reminiscent of how an ecosystem or organism thrives by harnessing local variations in synergy with the broader environment.
11.2. The Paradox of Freed Potential
Paradoxically, acknowledging the future’s emergent nature frees us from illusions of total control but invests us with a deeper creative responsibility. We cease to be managers who impose final solutions; we become enablers who provide structural freedom. If illusions of top-down mastery once offered comfort, they now ring hollow in an era of complex, AI-saturated civilizations. Real confidence arises from trusting emergent phenomena to reorganize themselves if the environment is rightly tuned. That environment includes robust feedback, moral clarity, interpretive slack, and a readiness to integrate anomalies.
In so doing, we discover that the future is not a cold problem to be solved but a domain of co-creation, intimately tied to meaning, autonomy, and the synergy of minds (both human and machine). Here, the “subject” is not overshadowed by unstoppable crowds or unwieldy apparatuses; rather, free vantage points, working in partial unison, shape a new coherence that ephemeral illusions cannot replicate.
11.3. A Final Vision: The Future as a Sensory-Immersive Invitation
Finally, we recall the possibility of making this conceptual shift more tangible by immersing people in experiences where emergent synergy unfolds in real time. Multi-sensory exhibitions, interactive cinematic arcs, or “creator fiction” frameworks can let participants embody the dynamics of second-order synergy, seeing how potentialities integrate into stable-yet-evolving forms. This might become the apex of future-management: not a theoretical treatise but a lived practice where entire populations learn to observe, adapt, co-create, and find meaning in the emergent transformations shaping tomorrow.
Thus, the future stands revealed as the apex synergy of a civilization’s self-regulation—an ever-widening orchard of possibility, shaped by seeds of novelty, nurtured by thoughtful AI infrastructures, guided by moral orientation, and brought to fruition by the interpretive freedom of autonomous agents. In place of illusions of control, we adopt a deeper faith in emergent growth, trusting that while we cannot script every outcome, we can shape the conditions so that the best potentials have the chance to root, branch, and flourish.
References
Arendt, Hannah. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bacon, Francis. (1620). Novum Organum. London: John Bill.
Comte, Auguste. (1848). A General View of Positivism. London: Trübner.
Derrida, Jacques. (1972). Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foerster, Heinz von. (1981). Observing Systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems.
Lyotard, Jean-François. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Maturana, Humberto R., & Varela, Francisco. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living.Dordrecht: Reidel.
Wiener, Norbert. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Comentários